IntroductionThis report has been prepared by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS),the Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University, and the Canadian Feminist Alliancefor International Action (FAFIA).CAEFS is an association of self-governing, community-based societies that work with and forwomen and girls in the justice system, particularly those who are, or may be, criminalized.The Chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University, Dr. Pamela Palmater, conductsresearch and scholarship in relation to Indigenous law, governance and politics in a First Nationcontext.FAFIA is an alliance of more than sixty women’s equality seeking organizations dedicated tomaking international human rights commitments a reality in women’s everyday lives in Canada.http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/CAN/INT_CEDAW_NGO_CAN_25420_E.pdf"Violence against Indigenous women and girls is addressed in detail in the CASAC-FAFIA reporton Violence Against Women (Reply to Issues 7 and 8 ), and in the NWAC-FAFIA report on theimplementation of the recommendations made in the CEDAW Committee’s article 8 inquiryreport on murders and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls (Reply to Issue 17).This report highlights the particular role of police in the crisis of violence against Indigenouswomen and girls. The importance of examining police practices in relation to racist, sexist andneglectful police investigations into violence against Indigenous women and girls, particularlymurdered and missing Indigenous women, is essential in ending those practices whichcontribute to this crisis. Also important is a thorough examination of police conduct in terms ofracism, abuse and sexualized violence demonstrated by members of various police forcestowards Indigenous women and girls, i.e. as perpetrators themselves.80 Intimidation, threats,physical abuse, sexual assaults and the sexual exploitation of Indigenous women and girls(including child pornography) by police forces in Canada have been documented by HumanRights Watch81 and various media outlets in Canada.High levels of sexism82, racism,83 and police corruption84 generally, and towards Indigenouswomen and girls specifically, further compounds the civil right of Indigenous women and girlsto redress, as most complaint processes are through the same offending police forces. Canada’sfailure to address this led the CEDAW Committee to conclude in its 2015 article 8 Inquiry reportthat reports of police abuse against Indigenous women and girls have left behind “a legacy offear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies and officials”85 and that Canada failed to ensurecomplaints processes against police abuses were accessible to Indigenous women and girls.86Conclusion to Part IIIIndigenous women and girls continue to suffer from deteriorating health and living conditions.They are subject to unacceptably high levels of violence and murder, their children aredisproportionately taken by the State, and they are one of the fastest growing prisonpopulations in Canada. The living situations of many Indigenous women and girls continue todeteriorate.While the CEDAW Committee has made recommendations to Canada to improve the socioeconomicliving conditions of Indigenous women and girls, other than launching the nationalinquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, little concrete action has beentaken.

Recommendations

The Government of Canada should: Immediately provide adequate needs-based funding for all social programs on-reserveat least on par with provincial funding levels, taking into account significant additionalinvestments which will be required to address the housing and education backlogs,long-standing infrastructure deficiencies, and cumulative social and health problemsthat developed from lack of funding, with special attention to the particulardisadvantages faced by Indigenous women and girls. Create joint emergency task force(s) in partnership with, and with adequate funding tosupport, First Nations, Indigenous women’s groups, organizations, and experts tocreate a strategic plan to address long-standing urgent crises such as emergencymanagement, children in care, over-imprisonment of Indigenous women, and highsuicide rates. Work in partnership with First Nations, Indigenous women’s groups, organizations andexperts to develop legislation, policy and funding support mechanisms to fullyimplement UNDRIP with a special and urgent focus on extractive activities taking placein Canada and the need for free, informed and prior consent, special protections forIndigenous women and girls, and funding for suitable research, legal support andIndigenous institutions to fully and properly engage in ongoing consultations anddecision-making, before allowing any further activity on or near Indigenous lands. Implement the recommendations of the Auditor General of Canada, Truth andReconciliation Commission, UN Special Rapporteur on rights of Indigenous peoples, the CEDAW Committee and other United Nations treaty bodies to address the socioeconomic crises faced by Indigenous women and girls. Investigate and address the vulnerabilities associated with Indigenous children in care,runaways, and homeless Indigenous women and children to police racism andsexualized violence. Consider the impact that police racism and violence has on the victims, their families,communities, and Nations and means of compensating them.

Conclusion of Part IVMany women and girl prisoners in Canada are unnecessarily imprisoned as they pose no threatto public safety and would be better managed in the community. This is particularly true forIndigenous women, who are disproportionately incarcerated and often imprisoned far fromtheir home communities.Women who are incarcerated in Canada are often over classified, face inhumane segregation,and lack mental health supports and access to programming. Canada has not made significantimprovements to the living conditions of prisons for women and the number of imprisonedwomen and girls is increasing, despite their low risk to society.RecommendationsThe Government of Canada should: Restrict the use of imprisonment for women and develop new protocols todecarcerate women, particularly Indigenous women and those with disabling mentalhealth issues. Increase income security, health and educational measures such as income assistance,adequate housing, and community supports for women with mental health issues toaddress the reality that women are being criminalized and incarcerated because ofpoverty, previous abuse, social disadvantage, racialization, and disabling mentalhealth and intellectual capacity issues. Put an end to the practice of employing male staff working in front-line contact withwomen in prisons for women. Establish an independent judicial oversight body as the external redress for federallysentenced prisoners. Put an end to the practice of placing women prisoners in segregation or solitaryconfinement.

(I) Reply to Issue 2: Sex Discrimination in the Indian ActIn 2008, the CEDAW Committee recommended that Canada “take immediate action to amendthe Indian Act to eliminate the continuing discrimination against women with respect to thetransmission of Indian status…”.1Bill C-3: Outstanding Sex DiscriminationThe 2010 Act to promote gender equity in the Indian Act (Bill C-3),2 which was the Harpergovernment’s response to court decisions in McIvor v. Canada,3failed, once more, to eliminateall the sex discrimination in the Indian Act.4Specifically, under Bill C-3 the following groups are still excluded from recognition as StatusIndians, based on the ground of sex:5 Aboriginal grandchildren born prior to September 4, 1951, who are descendants of statuswomen who married non-status men, which is commonly referred to as “marrying out”(in contrast, comparable grandchildren of status men are eligible for status); Aboriginal grandchildren, born prior to April 17, 1985, to status women who parented incommon-law unions with non-status men (in contrast, comparable grandchildren ofstatus men are eligible for status); and  Aboriginal female children of male Indians, born prior to April 17, 1985, referred to in thelegislation as “illegitimate” (in contrast, male “illegitimate” children of status men areeligible for status).In addition, Bill C-3 relegates Indigenous women, who were victims of sex discrimination underformer versions of the Indian Act, and their descendants, to inferior categories of status.Women like Sharon McIvor, who were penalized by the infamous “marrying out” rule, do nothave full Indian 6(1)(a) status.6Consigning the women to the inferior s. 6(1)(c) (reinstatee)category devalues them, and it reduces the quality of the status they are able to transmit totheir descendants.7Also, in order for a child of an Indigenous woman to be recognized as having full status, theadministrative policy is that the identity of the father must be declared and the signatures ofboth parents must be presented, otherwise it will automatically be assumed that the father isnon-Indian.8This sex discrimination was not addressed by Bill C-3.IACHR, CEDAW Investigations of Missing and Murdered WomenBoth the IACHR report9and the CEDAW Committee Report10 on missing and murderedIndigenous women and girls found that sex discrimination in the Indian Act was a root cause ofthe crisis of violence, and recommended that Canada eliminate the discrimination immediately.These recommendations were echoed by the UN Human Rights Committee in August 2015.11McIvor PetitionAs a result of Bill C-3’s deficiencies, Sharon McIvor filed a petition with the UN Human RightsCommittee (McIvor v. Canada (Communication No. 2020/2010), claiming that the continuingsex discrimination violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.12The exchange of submissions between Canada and Ms. McIvor was completed in 2012. Since2012, there was no action on Ms. McIvor’s file until May 9, 2016, when Canada requested thatthe UN Human Rights Committee suspend its consideration of her petition on the grounds that: Canada has been directed by the Superior Court in a ruling on Descheneaux vCanada13 to amend the Indian Act because it discriminates against StéphaneDescheneaux and Susan Yantha on the basis of sex, and the Court has given Canadauntil February 3, 2017, to make curative amendments.14At the same time, Canada stated that, if its request to the Committee was not granted, itmaintained that no remedy should be granted to Ms. McIvor.

On June 28, 2016, Canada amended its request for suspension, stating that it is Canada’sintention to remove all “known sex discrimination” from the Indian Act by February 2017.This commitment goes further than Descheneaux, since amendments to cure Descheneauxwill not remove all the sex discrimination.15The Committee granted Canada’s request and suspended consideration of the McIvorpetition until March 2017.However, on July 29, 2016, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs sent out aletter to Aboriginal organizations informing them that it intends to begin consultations onamendments to cure the discrimination identified in Descheneaux. This contradictsCanada’s undertaking in its revised request for suspension to the Human Rights Committeeand in its public announcement issued on amendments to the Indian Act, namely thatCanada will remove all sex discrimination in the Indian Act by February 2017.16Despite repeated and urgent recommendations from treaty bodies, Canada has failed to act.Now it has made contradictory undertakings. Instead of removing all remaining discriminationby February 2017, Canada may correct only the discrimination found in Descheneaux and followits previous practice of amending the Act in a piecemeal and incomplete fashion, leavingIndigenous women and their descendants to return to court to litigate each variation of theimpact of the sex discrimination.17

RecommendationsThe Government of Canada should: Implement the CEDAW and Human Rights Committee recommendations. Amend the Indian Act to remove all sex discrimination by February 2017 and ensurethat s. 6(1)(a) of the status registration regime, introduced by the 1985 Indian Act, andre-enacted by the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act (Bill C-3), is interpreted oramended so as to entitle to registration under s. 6(1)(a) those persons who werepreviously not entitled to be registered under s. 6(1)(a) solely as a result of thepreferential treatment accorded to Indian men over Indian women born prior to April17, 1985, and to patrilineal descendants over matrilineal descendants, born prior toApril 17, 1985.(II) Reply to issue 3: Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights ActIn its List of Issues, the Committee asks whether the repeal of section 67 of the CanadianHuman Rights Act (CHRA) has provided “full protection for aboriginal women againstdiscrimination and full redress for any human rights violations,” as recommended in 2008.18

For complaints regarding sex discrimination in the Indian Act’s status provisions, this moreaccessible and less costly route to a remedy appears to have been foreclosed by a decisionof the Federal Court of Appeal in Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Attorney Generalof Canada, handed down July 21, 2016.19 The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that theCanadian Human Rights Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints regardingthe registration provisions of the Indian Act because they are challenges to a law, whichcan only be dealt with under the Charter.This decision underlines the importance of removing all the sex discrimination from theIndian Act, so that the women and their descendants do not have to litigate to obtain aremedy.Additionally, according to a 2014 report by the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC),many Indigenous women are not aware of their rights under the CHRA and do not know how touse them.20 Recurring issues included the complexity of the complaints process, the lack of legalaid, cultural incompetence, and being redirected to other government bodies/alternativedispute resolution remedies.21(III) Reply to issue 16: The Social and Economic Conditions ofIndigenous Women and GirlsCEDAW Committee’s Concerns and Previous RecommendationsThe CEDAW Committee recognizes that Indigenous women face multiple forms of discrimination.In its 2008 Concluding observations, the Committee noted that:[A]boriginal women in Canada continue to live in impoverished conditions,which include high rates of poverty, poor health, inadequate housing, lack ofaccess to clean water, low school-completion rates and high rates of violence.They are underrepresented in all areas of the labour market, in particular insenior or decision-making positions, have higher rates of unemployment andface a greater pay gap in terms of their hourly earnings compared with men[and…] are also exposed to a high level of violence and are significantlyunderrepresented in political and public life.22The Committee also expressed concerns over the disproportionately high number of Indigenousgirls that have been taken into state custody.23At the time, the Committee recommended that Canada:

 Eliminate legal provisions that discriminate against Indigenous women; End discriminatory practices that limit Indigenous women’s access to education,employment, and physical and psychological well-being; Develop a plan to address Indigenous women’s poverty, poor health, inadequatehousing, low school-completion rates, low employment rates, low income and high ratesof violence; Provide funding for Indigenous women to address issues impeding their legal andsubstantive equality issues; and Take all necessary measures to address the issue of the separation of Indigenous childrenfrom their parents.24With regard to the Committee’s 2016 List of Issues,25 it is important to note that the items listedat paragraph 16 in regards to Indigenous women should not be examined in isolation.Discriminatory laws, lack of access to traditional territories and resources, and the impact ofextractive activities on Indigenous peoples’ lands are some of the root causes of thedeteriorating health and living conditions of, and high rates of violence against, Indigenouswomen and girls in Canada.Deteriorating Health and Living ConditionsIn Canada, the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples generally, and Indigenouswomen and girls specifically, are extremely poor. Former Special Rapporteur on the rights ofIndigenous peoples, James Anaya, concluded in his 2014 report on Canada that: “The mostjarring manifestation of human rights problems is the distressing socio-economic conditions ofindigenous peoples in a highly developed country”.26 Anaya emphasizes that there have beenno improvements in the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples since the last reportin 2004, a finding confirmed by Canada’s Auditor General.27Indigenous peoples suffer from a lack of access to housing, safe drinking water and sanitation,adequate health services, economic development, education and employment.28 Indigenouswomen and girls are particularly disadvantaged due to ongoing discrimination in the Indian Actand Canada’s related policies and funding mechanisms, which often disentitle them fromessential social programs.29 Indigenous women and girls are also particularly vulnerable toabuse within this context of poor socio-economic conditions, which Anaya categorized as “acontinuing crisis”.30Below are some examples of how the health and living conditions of Indigenous women andgirls continue to deteriorate:

 Children in care crisis: 48% of children in state care (foster care) in Canada areIndigenous (more than 85% in Manitoba);31 the number of children in care has “increasedrapidly.”32 Water and sanitation crisis: 113+ First Nations do not have clean drinking water;33 73%of all water systems and 64% of wastewater systems on reserves are at medium to highrisk;34 some reserves have been under boil water advisories for over 10 years.35 Housing crisis: 28% of First Nations people live in over-crowded housing; 43% of FirstNation homes are in need of major repair;36 there is a 110,000 home backlog on FirstNations reserves;37 and Indigenous women and children are vulnerable to homelessnessupon marriage breakdown due to the fact that the possession of homes on reserves aremost often held by men.38 Health crisis: life expectancy for Indigenous people is currently eight years less than nonIndigenousCanadians;39 life expectancy is projected to be 5-15 years less than nonIndigenousCanadians in 2017;40 Indigenous peoples suffer from higher rates of chronicand infectious diseases, injuries, substance abuse and mental health issues;41 rates ofheart disease and stroke have declined in Canada, but continue to increase forIndigenous peoples;42 Indigenous women have higher rates of heart disease and strokecompared to Indigenous men and non-Indigenous women.43 Education crisis: the gap in education levels between Indigenous peoples and nonIndigenouspeople is widening – it would take at least 28 years to close the gap;44 morethan 9,500 Indigenous peoples are on a waiting list to obtain post-secondary education;45the number of Indigenous people funded for post-secondary education has decreased by18.3% since 1997;46 and there have been drastic cuts to First Nation educationalinstitutes that have crippled Indigenous language immersion programs for primarystudents.47 Suicide crisis: First Nation suicide rates are 2-6 times higher than those of Canadians andInuit rates are 10 times higher;48 38% of all Indigenous youth deaths are from suicide;49Indigenous women have higher rates of suicide attempts;50 some First Nations have thehighest suicide rates in the world;51 and suicide rates are increasing.52 Prison crisis: 36% of prison populations are Indigenous women;53 imprisonment ofIndigenous women has increased 90% in the last decade;54 incarceration rates forIndigenous youth are eight times higher than for Canadian youth overall;55 41% ofadmissions to detention were Indigenous youth and Indigenous girls represent 53% ofyouth in corrections;56 and incarceration rates for all Indigenous peoples are increasing57. Poverty crisis: 60% of Indigenous children living on reserve live in poverty (76% inManitoba First Nations) compared to 13% for non-Indigenous and non-racializedCanadians; poverty rates have worsened in the last five years;58 Indigenous women aremore likely to be single mothers and disproportionately live in poverty compared toIndigenous men and non-Indigenous women.59 Crisis of violence: There are over 1,181 known cases of murdered and disappearedIndigenous women and girls;60 research indicates the number is likely more than 4,000;61Indigenous women represent 16% of homicide victims but only 4% of the female Canadian population;62 while homicide rates are decreasing for Canadian women, theyare increasing for Indigenous women and girls.63 Cultural crisis: 96% of Indigenous languages are at high risk of extinction (60/63);64Indigenous peoples lack access to 99% of their traditional lands and resources;65extractive industries cause environmental destruction disproportionately on or nearIndigenous lands impacting socio-economic conditions;66 there is an increasing risk ofviolence to Indigenous women67 and criminalization of land and water defenders, manyof whom are women.68There has been no improvement in socio-economic conditions in many First Nations. Canada’sAuditor General has noted the following reasons for this: Canada does not provide adequate, equitable or sufficient funding for critical socialprograms and emergency management;69 Decision-making for program funding for First Nations lacks transparency, does notadhere to relevant policies, and appears “arbitrary”;70 Canada’s attempts to implement recommendations that would have the greatest impacton the health and well-being of First Nations have repeatedly failed;71 and Information that would give a clear picture of crises in First Nations is not tracked,adequately recorded, maintained, or reported to Parliament.72The Auditor General concluded that these long-standing problems in First Nations are expectedto continue unless Canada acts on the recommendations and makes significant financialinvestments in its Indigenous peoples.73 The Truth and Reconciliation Report made 94 Calls toAction, which included increasing funding for education, health, and child welfare.74 Anayamade similar calls for more funding for housing, health, child welfare, and education.75 Despitepromises to the contrary, Canada has not addressed the chronic underfunding.76 The 2% cap oneducation funding put in place in 1996 is still in place and no extra money was given for postsecondaryeducation despite federal promises.77As the CEDAW Committee recognized in its Inquiry Report,78 the poverty and socialdisadvantage of Indigenous women exacerbates every form of social, sexual and racializedsubordination that they experience. Profound deprivations of personal autonomy, liberty, andsafety result.Domestic Abuse, Sexualized Violence & the Role of PoliceAs noted above, high rates of domestic and sexualized violence are one of the manifestations ofpoor socio-economic conditions and the ongoing discrimination against Indigenous women andgirls.79

(IV) Reply to issue 18: Women in DetentionCEDAW’s Concerns and Previous RecommendationsIn 2008, the CEDAW Committee expressed several concerns about the deplorable conditionsfor women in detention in Canada. The Committee was concerned with: the disproportionate number of incarcerated Indigenous and Afro-Canadian women; the number of women unnecessarily classified at the restrictive maximum-security levelin federal prisons; male guards employed at prisons for women; and adolescent girls who are detained in mixed-sex prisons.87The Committee found that these practices violated female prisoners privacy rights, exposedthem to physical and sexual violence, and restricted their access to programming, educationand employment opportunities. 88Other UN committees, such as the Human Rights Committee, have also expressed concernsabout Canada’s prison system, noting the unacceptably high rates of incarcerated Indigenouswomen,89 the over-crowding of detention facilities, the segregation of prisoners, lack of medicalsupport for prisoners with serious mental health issues, and suicides of prisoners.90In its 2008 Concluding Observations, the CEDAW Committee recommended that Canada: address the over-incarceration of racialized women; redesign its classification system for women in the federal prison system; stop employing male guards in prisons for women; develop an independent redress and oversight mechanism for women prisoners atfederal institutions; and not detain young female prisoners in mixed-sex prisons.91Canada has failed to meaningfully implement the 2008 recommendations made by the CEDAWCommittee and has done little to address the underlying conditions related to the overincarcerationof racialized women.Liberty and Security of the PersonThe number of women imprisoned in Canada is increasing at an alarming rate. The overallpopulation of women in prison increased 60% since 2003.92 Between 2003 and 2013, thenumber of federally imprisoned women increased by 13.9%.93 This is happening at a time whenCanada’s national crime rate is at its lowest since 1969.94 Indigenous and other racializedwomen,95 as well as women with disabling mental health issues,96 are disproportionatelyincarcerated.The overwhelming majority of women in prison have histories of abuse and suffer from posttraumaticstress.97 85.7% of all incarcerated women and 91% of Indigenous incarceratedwomen have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse.98 Many have never receivedtherapeutic support; rather, they are likely to be medicated and pathologized.Imprisoned women are more likely to be impoverished, under-educated99 and unemployed100than the general public. 64.2% of federally incarcerated women are single mothers;101 57.1%had primary responsibility for their children before they were imprisoned;102 and the majority of their children end up in the care of the state.Most women are criminalized for behaviour occasioned by their attempts to negotiatepoverty,103 violent racism, and other forms of discrimination related to their marginalizationand victimization.104 So slight is the risk that women pose to public safety that this risk can andshould be managed in the community.Over-incarceration of Racialized WomenA recent report commissioned by Public Safety Canada revealed that the over-incarceration ofIndigenous women is nothing short of a crisis.105 Across Canada, the over-incarceration ofIndigenous women is a form of systemic discrimination within Canada’s justice system.106Increases in marginalization, victimization, criminalization and imprisonment are directlyrelated to the systemic discrimination, poverty, violence and isolation faced by Indigenous andother racialized women. Indigenous women prisoners represent the fastest growing prison populations in Canada.Between 2003 and 2013, their numbers increased by over 83.7%.107 In September 2007, Indigenous women were 45% of women classified as “maximumsecurity”;108 they also account for 75% of reported incidents of self-injury.109 The classification system used by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), whichadministers federal prisons, was designed for a predominantly white male population.Although CSC claims it has adjusted the classification system, it still fails to take intoaccount cultural or gender specific issues.110 Indigenous women are more likely to beclassified as medium or maximum security than non-Indigenous women.111 Prisoners of African Canadian heritage represented 2.9% of the Canadian population in2011, yet Black women represented 9.12% of the federal prisoner population in 2011-2012.112 The majority of African Canadian women in federal penitentiaries are incarcerated fordrug trafficking. Many of these prisoners were caught carrying drugs across internationalborders. All were poor, and most had been coerced or forced into trafficking underthreats of violence.113The over-representation of Indigenous women within the justice system in Canada is anincreasing problem, and is directly related to women’s inequality, marginalization andvictimization, including the relative lack of economic support, housing and services, such astherapeutic and mental health services, available to women, particularly in non-urban andnorthern Canada.114 Further, the lack of available community-based services results in womenbeing geographically and culturally dislocated from their families and/or communities ofsupport, to serve prison sentences.115

Treatment of Women PrisonersAlthough the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women,116 the Arbour Commission,117 theAuditor General, the Public Accounts Committee, the Correctional Investigator and theCanadian Human Rights Commission118 have consistently concluded119 that women prisonerspose a low risk to public safety and that they are less likely than men to return to prison on newcharges, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) continues to use the same risk and needsassessment tools for both men and women.120Women prisoners have less diverse programming, fewer choices for employment relatedtraining, and less access to services overall.121 Sections 77 and 80 of the Corrections andConditional Release Act122 stipulate that the CSC must provide gender specific and culturallyappropriate programming. However, women continue to be provided with programs andservices designed for a predominately white, male prison population.123Male Prison StaffIn its 2006 Concluding Observations, after reviewing Canada’s fifth report, the United NationsHuman Rights Committee recommended: “The State party should put an end to the practice ofemploying male staff working in direct contact with women in women's institutions.”124

The Government of Canada continues to employ male front line staff in its prisons.125 Despitethe reality that 91% of federally imprisoned Indigenous women and the overwhelming majorityof all federally sentenced women have histories of physical and/or sexual abuse,126 since 1995,CSC has employed men as front line workers. In addition, many of the men are inadequatelytrained and have not been screened to work with women.127 Women prisoners regularlycomplain of inappropriate comments and even sexual harassment and assault by male staff,but refuse to file formal complaints against staff for fear of retaliation.128Segregation (Solitary Confinement)In 2006, the Human Rights Committee requested that Canada provide information “regardingthe establishment of an independent external redress body for federally sentenced prisonersand independent adjudication for decisions related to involuntary segregation, or alternativemodels.”129 In 2015, the Human Rights Committee recommended that Canada “effectively limitthe use of administrative or disciplinary segregation as a measure of last resort and for as shorta time as possible and avoid such confinement for inmates with serious mental illness”.130The Government of Canada has not developed an external redress body,131 and women inCanadian prisons continue to be disproportionately segregated. The 1996 Arbour Commissiondocumented how women are affected by the isolation of segregation.132 Segregationaggravates and/or creates mental health issues,133 reduces motivation and opportunities to participate in reintegration activities,134 and has been defined as an act of torture by the UnitedNations.135 Segregation is a status and a place. Women who are segregated from the general prisonpopulation are subjected to overly restrictive conditions of confinement, including beingplaced in segregation and being isolated for 23 hours a day and may have no humaninteraction other than when they are physically restrained, or when food or medicationare passed through a slot in the door.136 In 2012-2013, there were 390 women in involuntary segregation.137 18.2% of the womenstayed in segregation for longer than 30 days.138 Indigenous women are more likely to be involuntarily segregated and are held insegregation for longer periods that non-Indigenous women.139 It is typical for the reactions of women who are held in segregation to result in additionalcriminal charges and therefore longer sentences.140 The Canadian Medical Association and the UN Special Rapporteur on torture havelabeled solitary confinement “cruel and unusual punishment,” and the SpecialRapporteur has called for an absolute ban on solitary confinement for youth and thosewith mental health issues.141 The jury at the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith recommended that prisoners withmental health issues never be placed in segregation.142 Since that time, the Honourable Louise Arbour, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth FrySocieties, and the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Commissions have recommendedan end to the use of solitary confinement for women prisoners, particularly Indigenouswomen and those with disabling mental health issues.143 Until it is abolished, theyrecommend that segregation, and any similar measures, should never last longer than 15days, in line with the Mandela Rules prohibition on the use of prolonged solitaryconfinement.144 Between 2011 and 2014 nearly half of suicides in federal prisons occurred in segregationcells. Most prisoners who have died in segregation had a documented history of mentalhealth problems. Yet, few, if any, had access to therapeutic intervention.145Given the profound and disproportionate impact of segregation on Indigenous women andwomen with mental health issues, the use of solitary confinement must end. Placing limits onthe duration of time that a woman may be placed in segregation is not enough. Such limits haveonly proven to be arbitrary and do little to protect those who are most vulnerable.Imprisoned Women with Mental Health IssuesCuts to health and social services, including social housing, have contributed to the increasingnumbers of women with disabling mental health issues in prisons and detention centres. Thelack of services for women in the community contributes to the burgeoning population of women in prison, particularly Indigenous women, poor women and those with disabling mentalhealth issues and intellectual disabilities. In what has been dubbed a “revolving door”146syndrome, there is ample evidence that homeless women with mental health issues are morelikely to be imprisoned, and if released find it almost impossible to find housing, so too oftenfind themselves re-incarcerated.147In its 2006 Concluding Observations, after reviewing Canada’s fifth report, the United NationsHuman Rights Committee recommended that:The State party, including all governments at the provincial and territoriallevel, should increase its efforts to ensure that sufficient and adequatecommunity based housing is provided to people with mental disabilities, andensure that the latter are not under continued detention when there is nolonger a legally based medical reason for such detention.148In its 2015 Concluding Observations, the Human Rights Committee noted its concern about the“insufficient medical support to detainees with serious mental illness” and called on Canada totake appropriate measures to “effectively improve access to, and capacity of, treatment centresfor prisoners with mental health issues at all levels.”149This is a double-faceted problem: women with mental health issues are at particular risk ofbeing imprisoned and, inside prisons, they do not receive treatment or appropriate care. Federally sentenced women are twice as likely as men to have a mental health disorderupon being admitted to prison;150 and in 2012/2013 approximately 75% of womenprisoners received a CSC-based mental health service.151 The Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) has assessed that CSC cannot adequatelydeal with mental health issues, especially when it comes to federally sentenced women.The OCI found that CSC has an over reliance on force, physical restraints, restriction onmovement, limitations on interaction with other prisoners, and limitations on access totransfers to appropriate psychiatric or mental health resources.152

 There are significantly fewer transition options for women released from prisons,particularly those with mental health issues. 153In the November 2015 mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety, Prime Minister Trudeaurecognized the need to improve services for incarcerated people with mental health issues. ThePrime Minister called on the Minister to “address gaps in services to Indigenous Peoples andthose with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.”154No action has been taken on this yet.http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/CAN/INT_CEDAW_NGO_CAN_25420_E.pdf